for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: James Burns on 22 Apr 2010 15:43 Transfer Principle wrote: > On Apr 18, 5:07 am, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: >>> >>>of RF, TO, MR, tommy1729 was going to be easy. >> >>RF = Ross Finleyson ? >>TO = Tony Orlow i guess. >>MR = ? Mitch Raemsch ??? i hope not !? > > Fine then. Since I'm not helping _any_ "cranks" by > defending _every_ "crank," I'll drop MR from the > list as being too "cranky" even for me to defend. Once upon a time, you claimed that your goal in posting was to dissuade others from calling certain hard-to-reason-with posters "cranks". The character of these posters itself (call it "crankishness" or orneriness or obliviousness) was irrelevant, as you were only interested in the injustice you perceived in their being called cranks. Since then, you have declined to defend James Harris, Russell Easterly (I think...I may be wrong here), and Mitch Raemsch (aka BURT). It looks to me as though your behavior and the behavior of those you attempt to shame (by speaking of them as though they were a homogeneous blob, "Standard theorists do this" and "Standard theorists do that") is different only in degree -- if that. (Ask yourself who refers to the cranks most often as cranks, though maybe they don't mind as long as they are only called "cranks".) I think it is fair to say that your Grand Project has decayed to the point that you are only defending /your/ right to decide for /everyone else/ who is and is not a crank. Why not bury the corpse of the project and move on? Jim Burns
From: christian.bau on 22 Apr 2010 17:34 Two slight corrections: 1. twins (p-1) = M-1, not M. Which makes the proof even stronger. 2. Although the Prime Patterns Conjecture says that there are infinitely many sets with 24 twin primes, only _one_ set with only _22_ twin primes is needed.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 21 Apr 2010 01:43 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > Most standard theorists aren't looking for theories at all -- since > they already have a theory, namely ZFC. The only people who are > looking for _unusual_ theories are those who object to the _usual_ > theories for one reason or another. Balderdash! Logicians and logically minded mathematicians routinely study all sorts of exotic and unusual theories and logics[1]. (Mathematicians who aren't logically minded usually don't care about or pay any attention to formal theories, nor is there any reason they should.) There's no need to connect such an activity to silly (or even reasonable) objections. Personal dislikes, inclinations, what one finds congenial and what intellectually repugnant, may naturally guide what one finds worth studying, but in so far as such are merely reflections of idiosyncratic quirks, different temperaments, and so on, the "objections" are best put aside. (Pause here for a moment, recall to your mind and ponder the wise words of Kreisel I quoted some time ago, on Brouwer's intuitionist agit-prop campaigning...) > What theories will standard theorists accept? Here you go again, always on about people accepting or rejecting this and what not. Just what sort of acceptance do you have in mind? Footnotes: [1] Many of these are quite a bit wilder and more fantastic than the rather tepid twaddle, the positively conformist milksop non-conformism, the unimaginative and sketchy non-standardism, the pointless rebellion formulated, at the best of times, in the form of humdrum theories that fit all too nicely in the safest and dustiest nooks and crooks in formal arcana in the literature, all the boring idiocy that we're grown accustomed to, here in sci.math and sci.logic. For a truly bizarre read, sink your teeth in any of Jean-Yves Girard's recent papers! You'll find lots of objecting to this and that, and maundering in grand style against the copious panoply of sins philosophic committed in less uniquely French, standard mainstream foundational thought. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: master1729 on 23 Apr 2010 13:01 Jim Burns wrote : > Transfer Principle wrote: > > On Apr 18, 5:07 am, master1729 > <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > >>> > >>>of RF, TO, MR, tommy1729 was going to be easy. > >> > >>RF = Ross Finleyson ? > >>TO = Tony Orlow i guess. > >>MR = ? Mitch Raemsch ??? i hope not !? > > > > Fine then. Since I'm not helping _any_ "cranks" by > > defending _every_ "crank," I'll drop MR from the > > list as being too "cranky" even for me to defend. > > Once upon a time, you claimed that your goal in > posting was to dissuade others from calling > certain hard-to-reason-with posters "cranks". > > The character of these posters itself (call it > "crankishness" or orneriness or obliviousness) > was irrelevant, as you were only interested in > the injustice you perceived in their being > called cranks. > > Since then, you have declined to defend James Harris, > Russell Easterly (I think...I may be wrong here), > and Mitch Raemsch (aka BURT). > > It looks to me as though your behavior and the > behavior of those you attempt to shame (by speaking > of them as though they were a homogeneous blob, > "Standard theorists do this" and "Standard theorists > do that") is different only in degree -- if that. > (Ask yourself who refers to the cranks most often > as cranks, though maybe they don't mind as long as > they are only called "cranks".) > > I think it is fair to say that your Grand Project > has decayed to the point that you are only defending > /your/ right to decide for /everyone else/ who is > and is not a crank. > > Why not bury the corpse of the project and move on? > > Jim Burns > Surely , you must understand , you cannot simply defend everyone. for instance , james harris posts about prime twins are incomparable to musatovs posts. somewhere everybody has to draw a line , including lwalke , me and you. if someone insists that 2^2 = 3 or posts random symbols that is worse than ' a crank '. in general , when someone is insulted beyond ' crank ' with good reason by the majority ( such as musatov ) , choosing that side would be beyond defending cranks , it would be defending lunatics spammers etc. btw , lwalke , i did not intend to insult any groups by insulting musatov. by comparing musatov to any group of people , i try to offend musatov , not those people. i just cannot find anything or anyone lower than musatov who deserve to be compared to musatov ... sorry all things , groups or persons for being compared to musatov ... cmon , if your not even allowed to offend musatov anymore ?!? communist !! :)
From: spudnik on 23 Apr 2010 17:48
if some one gave a *reason* to redefine twins, that'd be "mathematical" (proviso: math is four subjects, at minimum). as for the idea of calling AP, an ultrafinitist, I only have two things to say: a) it wouldn't make any difference to him, being a user of "E-prime," the joke-language of Korbizynski (sp.?); b) the Monster group's symmetry has a factoring that is awfully similar to Bucky's here-to-fore silly finite base for computation. > "prime," "twin prime," etc., to be as interesting as one in > which sets can have nonzero infinitesimal measure. --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |